The gun did not keep him from getting beaten, it kept him from getting beaten worse and or killed. For Zimmerman that was a better outcome than the alternative. As such the gun helped.

If Zimmerman was able to turn the situation around after he had already been attacked, then there's no reason that the same wouldn't apply in other situations. Thus you contradicted yourself by saying that if you comply with a robber, you have zero (rather, little) chance of defending yourself if he decides to start beating you instead.

The gun did not keep him from getting beaten, it kept him from getting beaten worse and or killed. For Zimmerman that was a better outcome than the alternative. As such the gun helped.

If Zimmerman was able to turn the situation around after he had already been attacked, then there's no reason that the same wouldn't apply in other situations. Thus you contradicted yourself by saying that if you comply with a robber, you have zero (rather, little) chance of defending yourself if he decides to start beating you instead.

That's what I read when I read his comment. I figured if I just said his comment was "nonsense" (which it is) that that'd be better than explaining the contradiction that he'd turn around denying that's what he said or meant.

Basically, I felt someone else could take the head injury.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

? You kind of make it sound like a zero sum game here. On the one hand we have FREEDOM! On the other, gun safety. I don't know if that is you intent, but that is what it sounds like.

All I was saying is that as long as we value the freedom of individuals to own guns, there will be gun deaths in the USA[1]. You might want to think over why you thought I might have been making it a zero sum game, though.

Quote from: screwtape

I think there is a middle ground. We do not have any other freedom that is absolute. There are limits to what you can say and print. Your freedom from seach and seizure is limited. But that does not mean we are not free. Same with guns.

Of course, there are gradients. The question is where we set the issue of gun ownership.

Quote from: screwtape

Okay, let's put that in perspective. We do not have absolute, unregulated freedom to drive. Every car is registered. Every driver is licensed. There are rules as to where cars can go. There are strict safety standards to which cars must be built. We do not let people under a certain age (varying from state to state) drive. And over the years we have made driving safer.

A lot of what has made driving safer has been technological advancements that make cars safer to drive and help rescue people from the consequences of their own mistakes. Not all of it, of course. But a sizable percentage. And it's worth mentioning that even with the various driving laws, there are people who break the rules (whether accidentally or on purpose). Many of them get away with it, too, since we don't have enough police to strictly enforce all the driving laws.

Quote from: screwtape

? I can see comparing smoking and guns. But I don't see where driving fits in. Driving has a productive goal - transportation. Smoking, not so much. The goal is to get high, initially, and then to feed an addiction, later. The sole point of guns is to hurt or kill something or someone. If the only guns we are talking about are for hunting, then I see the point. But that's not remotely what we are talking about.

It's not about whether they have productive goals or not. They're all things that we have the right to do or have, that we could go without. We don't need individual motor vehicles - buses, subways, and trains would do the job quite nicely, if we were willing to switch to using them as a society. And without those, we wouldn't need to have driver's licenses in general.

Quote from: screwtape

I don't find this a convincing argument. What are the detriments of not having the freedom to smoke cigarettes? What are the benefits? How about for guns? Cars?

What happened when we made it illegal to drink? What's happening now that we've made it illegal to use various drugs? Those represent some of the drawbacks to removing someone's freedom to do something (like smoking). A significant portion of people do it anyway, and they cause more problems than would have happened if it had simply stayed legal.

If you really want me to, I'll see about making up a list of benefits and detriments. But I can't do it right now, thus why I'm asking.

Go ahead and quote where I said that. Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize. And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

It's possible I have attributed some traits and opinions to you because you seem to be so vehemently for, what I consider to be, unnecessary laws that further restrict the 2nd Amendment. I attributed to you the desire to outlaw "assault weapons," which would include AR-15s. Outlawing AR-15s nationwide would unnecessarily restrict what I consider to be a legitimate use by, say, a Wyoming rancher in defense of his property, cattle, against a dangerous adversary, a pack of wolves. (I don't think I ever said wolves attack people, so tou-fucking-che!)

But, before I get too deep into my apology, please tell me what you meant by this post, please:

I disagree with that assessment, but that is not the point. I'm not suggesting we take away all the guns. At least, not yet. I'm suggesting we have stricter laws about who gets them and what kind. Right now we say crazy people cannot have guns. But how do we know who is crazy? How do gun sellers know?

NY state has pretty strict gun laws compared to some states. If I recall correctly, you may own long guns without registration, but handguns must be registered. Here is where it gets tricky. Private gun owners may sell to each other without registering. So really, there is no regulation of who owns a gun.

Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was. This is a fully-automatic weapon. It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was. This is a fully-automatic weapon. It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods

My point is: what does the average citizen need to own a gun such as that that can kill someone from miles away?

It sure can't be target practice, or hunting; that gun has one purpose: killing someone. Handguns, and certain types of rifles/shotguns are understandable but that gun is made specifically to kill someone from a great distance. Why should the average citizen be able to own such a gun?

If you tell me target practice: you're full of shit.If you tell me hunting: you're a crackpot.If you tell me protection: protection from who?

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

I think of the doors in American buildings. Polished bronze, wood, beautiful glass doors, carefully measured and ordered and fit and lined up on all sides of our beautiful architecture, making access to American buildings, whether local, state, national government buildings, churches, museums, hospitals, baseball stadiums, airports - so easy and necessary to go in and out.

The doors are always locked now. We pass by 35 doors while waiting in long lines for one door to get funneled through and double-checked and detected, standing and watching soneone watch our belongings. What is society becoming?

Sorry, fellow folks in America. Guns will be a problem for as long as we pretend we are free because we, as a country, have no viable mechanism, political or otherwise, to solve the problem.

We could amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment.

In 2150.

Even that is a pipe dream. Sadly. On the bright side, I'll be too dead by then to get shot.

To clarify, when I say we have no viable mechanism, I don't mean legally. I'm sure such a process is available from that standpoint. But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was. This is a fully-automatic weapon. It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods

My point is: what does the average citizen need to own a gun such as that that can kill someone from miles away?

It sure can't be target practice, or hunting; that gun has one purpose: killing someone. Handguns, and certain types of rifles/shotguns are understandable but that gun is made specifically to kill someone from a great distance. Why should the average citizen be able to own such a gun?

If you tell me target practice: you're full of shit.If you tell me hunting: you're a crackpot.If you tell me protection: protection from who?

-Nam

The average citizen is NOT able to own such a gun, which is what Odin was saying. Special permits, and a class 3 FFL are required for ALL full auto weapons, but I don't think your gun would ever be allowed to be sold to the general populace. Maybe, possibly, to a very specialized collector, but even then, I kinda doubt it.

But it's silly of you to be trying to pick on a gun of this type in this thread. How many full auto weapons, no matter their lethal range, are found in screwtape's gun fails? How many full auto weapons are used in crime? Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.

Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was. This is a fully-automatic weapon. It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods

My point is: what does the average citizen need to own a gun such as that that can kill someone from miles away?

It sure can't be target practice, or hunting; that gun has one purpose: killing someone. Handguns, and certain types of rifles/shotguns are understandable but that gun is made specifically to kill someone from a great distance. Why should the average citizen be able to own such a gun?

If you tell me target practice: you're full of shit.If you tell me hunting: you're a crackpot.If you tell me protection: protection from who?

-Nam

The average citizen is NOT able to own such a gun, which is what Odin was saying. Special permits, and a class 3 FFL are required for ALL full auto weapons, but I don't think your gun would ever be allowed to be sold to the general populace. Maybe, possibly, to a very specialized collector, but even then, I kinda doubt it.

But it's silly of you to be trying to pick on a gun of this type in this thread. How many full auto weapons, no matter their lethal range, are found in screwtape's gun fails? How many full auto weapons are used in crime? Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.

Careful, I would hate to see you lose your balance.

Yes, but what I am saying is that some people, like the NRA, and those they have in their pocket[1] would put such weapons in the average citizens possession (if they could afford it), and my question: what does the average citizen need such a weapon? Hell,what does a non-military person (not the military) need such a weapon?

It's a weapon designed solely for killing people from great distances. No one but the military should have one, hell perhaps even they shouldn't have it. But it is classified as a "gun", as so many extremely dangerous weapons are.

"It looks so cool! I want one." NRA replies, "And you should have one."

Go ahead and quote where I said that. Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize. And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

It's possible I have attributed some traits and opinions to you because you seem to be so vehemently for, what I consider to be, unnecessary laws that further restrict the 2nd Amendment.

I already retracted that statement. What kind of person rattles on about retracted statements? One who was not paying attention? One who was drunk? I mean, jesus H christ, Odin, I even quoted it for you. Your rebuttal is too late to be of any value.

Your questions are moot. You have failed to address the basic points I have made and the simple questions I have asked. Instead, you repeat your mantra of "criminals will break the law". Until you deal with my points and questions in an adult and rational way, I have no obligation to respond to your questions.

The average citizen is NOT able to own such a gun, which is what Odin was saying. Special permits, and a class 3 FFL are required for ALL full auto weapons, but I don't think your gun would ever be allowed to be sold to the general populace. Maybe, possibly, to a very specialized collector, but even then, I kinda doubt it.

Quick question about this if you don't mind, I'm not familiar with US gun licencing.

Take Jay Leno for instance. He has a VAST collection of cars. Some much more practical than others, and some are wholly impractical, have 1000hp, and get about 3mpg. Does he need these cars? Nope, he doesn't. But, he finds value in owning them. He finds value in owning his entire collection.

Now, if you can understand that, you can also understand why some people collect firearms. Some collect vintage pieces, some collect military armaments, some collect shotguns, some collect handguns, some collect what they can afford. They aren't doing it for nefarious purposes.

Quick question about this if you don't mind, I'm not familiar with US gun licencing.

How do you get a special permit?

I do not know, as I've never felt the need to own one. I pretty sure there is a fairly extensive background check, and permits and such, but I'm sure you could find out with a quick Google search. I tried, but many of the sites that come up are blocked at my place of employment.

Your questions are moot. You have failed to address the basic points I have made and the simple questions I have asked. Instead, you repeat your mantra of "criminals will break the law". Until you deal with my points and questions in an adult and rational way, I have no obligation to respond to your questions.

I'm not going back through the 10 pages of minutiae to see which questions I haven't dealt with. So, let's start again.

Why don't you state your questions, or perhaps your proposals, again here, and I can try to address them? Maybe it would be better to start a new thread, titled something like "Common Sense Gun Controls," or some such.

I'm really not interested in having a conversation with you. In the two gun conversations you and I have had, you have been resistant to consider any kind of changes that would be productive. You have not demonstrated to me at any point that you are serious about discussing how to better keep guns away from people who should not have them. You have not actually paid any attention to what was said by me, and you have painted with a very broad brush. Any answers you have given have been shallow or vague or so emotionally charged as to be unuseful.

I created this thread originally specifically so you would not have to participate:

I made a new topic so everyone who is tired of the old thread don't have it pop up in their "new posts"

So, if you want to talk about this in another thread, you need to show me you are capable of it. I am not going to be the only participant putting in effort - which is more than just banging out an opinion on the keyboard. I need a good faith gesture. You are not even willing to go back and look at our conversation here, so I'm not holding my breath.

ATF will approve the application if the applicant: Is 21 years or older. Is not prohibited from handling or possessing firearms or ammunition Has not violated the Gun Control Act or its regulations Has not failed to disclose information or facts in connection with his application Has premises for conducting business or collecting

it looks like if you really wanted to own big guns you could get your licence fairly easily subject to paying the fee.

ATF will approve the application if the applicant: Is 21 years or older. Is not prohibited from handling or possessing firearms or ammunition Has not violated the Gun Control Act or its regulations Has not failed to disclose information or facts in connection with his application Has premises for conducting business or collecting

it looks like if you really wanted to own big guns you could get your licence fairly easily subject to paying the fee.

I just talked to one of my coworkers, who's much better versed in this area than I. He has both an FFL and the "tax stamp" for the Dept. of Justice, BATF division.

And yes, he's a crazy person.

So, I misspoke. The FFL apparently has nothing to do with full auto weapons, it's merely the license to buy and sell firearms.

The tax stamp license from the BATF is for full auto weaponry, but I was just told it's not all that difficult to get one of those either. I was also told that there are nearly 2000 of those active in my fair city of ~500,00 people.

But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.

Careful, I would hate to see you lose your balance.

My left-leaning ways are the reason I live on the moon, where it is much easier to remain on my feet.

Bonus: Air pollution is much less of a problem!

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 14-409, it is unlawful for any person, firm, orcorporation to manufacture, sell, give away, dispose of, use or possess machine guns,sub-machine guns, or other like weapons. A machine gun or sub-machine gun is one whichshoots, or can be readily restored to shoot more than one round, without manual reloading, by asingle function of the trigger. It also includes any frame or receiver of such a weapon, or partsused in converting a weapon into a machine gun or sub-machine gun. This prohibition does notapply to the following:

1. banks, merchants, and recognized business establishments for use in theirrespective places of business. However, these persons must first apply to andreceive from the sheriff of the county in which their business is located, a permitto possess the weapon for the purpose of defending their business;2. officers and soldiers of the United States Armed Forces, when in the discharge oftheir official duties;3. officers and soldiers of the Militia, when being called into actual service;4. officers of the state, or county, city or town, charged with the execution oflaws ofthe state, when acting in the discharge of their official duties;5. the manufacture, use, or possession of such weapons for scientific or experimentalpurposes when such manufacture, use, or possession is lawful under federal lawsand the weapon is registered with a federal agency, and a permit to manufacture,use, or possess the weapon has been obtained by the sheriff of the county in whichthe weapon is located; or6. a person who lawfully possesses or owns a weapon in compliance with 26 U.S.C.Chaper 53, §§ 5801-5871. Nothing limits however the discretion of the sheriff inexecuting the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon.

Any bona fide resident of the state who now owns a machine gun used in former wars mayretain and keep that weapon at his or her own property, as a relic or souvenir, without violatingthe provisions of this section, as long as he/she reports this weapon to the sheriff of the county inwhich he/she lives.

Bold is mine. The Sheriff has complete discretion on who can own a machine gun in his or her county in NC.

You compared the same want (or desire) of collecting cars to collecting guns. A car can't kill you from miles away like the gun I referenced can. Therefore the comparison is asinine.

I would understand that a person had a gun collection that spanned the lifetime of the guns being g collected (type, age) but those who advocate for gun ownership by way of any/every possible gun created, I highly doubt one who collects military grade guns are doing it for the joy of collecting. What desire, need, etc., would one have to have a XM307 ACSW in their collection?

"It's a military gun, it goes with my military guns."

I could understand if it was made incapable of firing, and then collecting it merely as a decorative but people who want that gun, I highly doubt it's for the "collection" bug.

Oh, and "desire" is defined as a "strong need of something" where as "want", is like, "I want a peach today, instead of an apple." Not signified as a "strong" want but just a want.

-Nam

« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 01:54:32 PM by Nam »

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

You compared the same want (or desire) of collecting cars to collecting guns. A car can't kill you from miles away like the gun I referenced can. Therefore the comparison is asinine.

I disagree. The comparison is of the "collecting", regardless of the item being collected. People collect all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Just because guns can kill doesn't render the comparison invalid.

Quote

I would understand that a person had a gun collection that spanned the lifetime of the guns being g collected (type, age) but those who advocate for gun ownership by way of any/every possible gun created, I highly doubt one who collects military grade guns are doing it for the joy of collecting.

^^This doesn't make sense to me. I'm going to break it up, hoping I have the context correct. Let me know if not.

Quote

I would understand that a person had a gun collection that spanned the lifetime of the guns being g collected (type, age) but those who advocate for gun ownership by way of any/every possible gun created,

I don't disagree that the general populace should not be privy to some weapons. There are, and should be, limits on the type of weaponry available.

Quote

I highly doubt one who collects military grade guns are doing it for the joy of collecting.

Some are, some aren't. But grouping all these collectors under one umbrella isn't doing your argument any favors. It's disingenuous. You know that not every single collector of these guns has the same motivations.

As a slight aside, there's a shooting range a few miles outside of town, called DragonMan's, where you can rent a .50 cal full auto machine gun to shoot on site. And it's FUN!